Export thread

If other, please elaborate below. Also, obviously, the 18th amendment is not included in this question since it has been repealed.

For what it's worth, I actually support the 2nd amendment, as long as--like everything else--it's effectively used and maintained. Which obviously isn't happening, especially with all of those bullshit gun law loopholes. And yes, although it will never likely happen, the clause was there for the King of England, or Whoever, shoving his nose all up into your business...which I guess is good to have just in case of the implausibility that ever happens.

But I also know that just banning guns isn't a viable option either.

Really, I think the best way to fix the problem isn't the amendment, but is fixing the laws applicable where we can, and also, more importantly, continue to push for a less gun-nut culture. This country is really skewed in how desensitized it is to things going boom and making other things go splat.

Its not really a whole amendment but I think the part about the president having to be born in the US is stupid. I understand wanting him to be a citizen and living here a certain amount of time, but I don't see why being born here is needed.

yeah that is not an amendment to the Constitution at all

Oh yeah, one of the original articles. My b.

The first. You guys really shouldn't be giving away speech for free like that. Especially in this economy.

the 17th kind of messed things up a bit, I think. it helped turn politics into a bigger circus than it was originally.

Most of the 12th amendment.

The 28th one will probably suck.

1st Amendment... because I have to read pointed polls by internet fuckheads.

I plead the 5th.

The other 9 amendments don't mean a thing without the 2nd.

I love the way the choices are the 2nd amendment...and everything else. Nothing like a loaded question, huh?

But my least favorites and why are:

• 18th Amendment - Of course, that was overturned. However, we learned nothing from it, hence the current war on drugs.
• 22nd Amendment - If a president is good and we want to keep him, let the voters decide. This amendment was put in to prevent the possibility of an incumbent using his (or her) office as a springboard to effectively keep the White House indefinitely. But others have said it's anti-democratic as it limits the choices of voters. Frankly I'd love another Clinton term or two, just as much as the Republicans wanted more Reagan.
• 26th Amendment - I have a lot of trouble with the way the US handles ages. Age to join the US military: 17. Age to vote: 18. Age to drink: 21. How does it make sense that a person is allowed to fight and die for the country but not be able to vote or drink? That's just fucking dumb. It's saying that we don't think you are mature enough to make choices with such things as electing someone to office and we sure don't trust you with alcohol! Your choices are bad and you should feel bad! Oh, but here's a weapon. Go into that highly stressful situation where lives are on the line - you are mature enough to make split-second decisions that could ruin lives.

These are all worse than the 2nd amendment in my view.

14th. herp, derp.

16th. The more money the government has, the more power they have to screw you over.

blotsfan said:

Its not really a whole amendment but I think the part about the president having to be born in the US is stupid. I understand wanting him to be a citizen and living here a certain amount of time, but I don't see why being born here is needed.

Click to expand...

Dave said:

I love the way the choices are the 2nd amendment...and everything else. Nothing like a loaded question, huh?

But my least favorites and why are:

• 18th Amendment - Of course, that was overturned. However, we learned nothing from it, hence the current war on drugs.
• 22nd Amendment - If a president is good and we want to keep him, let the voters decide. This amendment was put in to prevent the possibility of an incumbent using his (or her) office as a springboard to effectively keep the White House indefinitely. But others have said it's anti-democratic as it limits the choices of voters. Frankly I'd love another Clinton term or two, just as much as the Republicans wanted more Reagan.
• 26th Amendment - I have a lot of trouble with the way the US handles ages. Age to join the US military: 17. Age to vote: 18. Age to drink: 21. How does it make sense that a person is allowed to fight and die for the country but not be able to vote or drink? That's just fucking dumb. It's saying that we don't think you are mature enough to make choices with such things as electing someone to office and we sure don't trust you with alcohol! Your choices are bad and you should feel bad! Oh, but here's a weapon. Go into that highly stressful situation where lives are on the line - you are mature enough to make split-second decisions that could ruin lives.

These are all worse than the 2nd amendment in my view.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on all of these, especially the 22nd. I wish they'd extend it to maybe 3 terms, and extend each term by like 2 years. Honestly, a lot of modern plans and policies really need time to work (on both dem and rep fronts). The executive branch as a whole would greatly improve if the friggin white house wasn't election scrambling starting in year 3 of office.

Mathias said:

I agree with you on all of these, especially the 22nd. I wish they'd extend it to maybe 3 terms, and extend each term by like 2 years. Honestly, a lot of modern plans and policies really need time to work (on both dem and rep fronts). The executive branch as a whole would greatly improve if the friggin white house wasn't election scrambling starting in year 3 of office.

Click to expand...

Year 3?!? Our politicians are ALWAYS in reelection mode. And if they are not they are called "lame duck" and nobody thinks they have to work with them.

Dave said:

Year 3?!? Our politicians are ALWAYS in reelection mode. And if they are not they are called "lame duck" and nobody thinks they have to work with them.

Click to expand...

Ya, pretty much IMO. In Canada we get virtually all of your political coverage up here, and it's nothing like our own. Ours is "simmer" most of the time (budget is the only time it really ramps up IMO, and very briefly), and then once the actual election is called (parliament dissolves), those 40 days are like your REST OF THE TIME. It's really fucked up what you guys do.

It's exhausting, Eriol.

For our older members, was it always like this? I seem to remember (though nostalgia may be influenced by the disinterest I had in politics back then) politics really not being as long lasting as far as being on the news as it is now.

Nope. It's something that is relatively new. It's really, really bad for members of the House as their terms are only 2 years and so they are always campaigning.

The biggest problem is that EVERYTHING is equated to reelection, even if it's only by the media. Health care? Obama is trying to get it to up his reelection chances. Immigration reform? It's just being done to woo the Hispanic vote. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? Looking for the liberal gay vote.

It's pervasive and continuous.

I think some of it's new and some of it isn't. Upton Sinclair's book "I Candidate for Governor" talks about how completely corrupt and screwed up politics were back then, as does any look back into the state of Texas politics back during LBJ's rise to power. On the other hand look at someone like JFK, where someone leaked information of his affairs to like 30 media outlets and all of them refused to run it as they believed it was "beneath them".

I would say that true corruption has actually gotten significantly better in the last hundred years or so, and transparency has increased dramatically, but on the flipside the media has become a feeding frenzy where there isn't an angle too narrow or a story too low.

The really sad thing about that, though, is that it's our fault, not the media's. We drive the ratings for Limbaugh or O'Reilly over shows like Frontline or Charlie Rose. I mean, would we even accept an Edward R Murrow in todays world? Considering the sad fact that his career ended over his desire to avoid infotainment....I don't think he has a place here anymore.

Edit: In fact I suggesnt you to simply read Murrow's speech "light's and wires in a box" from the early 60s (I think). It will give you the chills.

http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/edward-r.-murrow-speech998.php

The best thing about the 22nd amendment was that it wasn't put into place until wayyy later. Before then it was just a guideline Presidents followed because of honor and shit.

yep, then FDR went and ruined it for everyone.

The 16th.

Much as I hate that we can't force our populace to house soldiers against their will, I'm going to have to go with 16th as well.

Krisken said:

For our older members, was it always like this? I seem to remember (though nostalgia may be influenced by the disinterest I had in politics back then) politics really not being as long lasting as far as being on the news as it is now.

Click to expand...

Necronic said:

I would say that true corruption has actually gotten significantly better in the last hundred years or so, and transparency has increased dramatically, but on the flipside the media has become a feeding frenzy where there isn't an angle too narrow or a story too low.

Click to expand...

As cliche as it sounds, you can blame it all on the 24-hour news networks. They have to have something to fill all those minutes each day. They don't take the time to research a story, to gather REAL facts and have the stuff to back it up, they have to be the first to get the news out. To be the first to get it in front of the audience instead of getting it right the first time.

24-hour news is the downfall of real journalism.

Dave said:

Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Click to expand...

That needed to be done a long time ago. As former Navy my opinion is DADT was retarded. It's all men are created equal, not all men are created equal except gays because eww.

I also support gay marriage (see me all men created equal thing) and the funny thing is is I think of myself as a republican even though I'm probably independent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CrimsonSoul said:

That needed to be done a long time ago. As former Navy my opinion is DADT was retarded. It's all men are created equal, not all men are created equal except gays because eww.

I also support gay marriage (see me all men created equal thing) and the funny thing is is I think of myself as a republican even though I'm probably independent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The word you are looking for is Libertarian.

Too bad more to the Tolerant Republicans don't split off and join the Libertarian movement...

sixpackshaker said:

Too bad more to the Tolerant Republicans don't split off and join the Libertarian movement...

Click to expand...

Most americans are idiots who prefer the illusory simplicity of a false dichotomy to having to actually put effort into educating themselves about voting.

GasBandit said:

The word you are looking for is Libertarian.

Click to expand...

thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GasBandit said:

Most americans are idiots who prefer the illusory simplicity of a false dichotomy to having to actually put effort into educating themselves about voting.

Click to expand...

Or they find the Libertarian party just as distasteful as the Republicans and Democrats.

We need to bring back the Progressive Party. Too bad LaFollette is too old to remember his grand-daddy.

Krisken said:

Or they find the Libertarian party just as distasteful as the Republicans and Democrats.

Click to expand...

Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen.

Don't forget those of us who think they don't need to align themselves with any particular party, and have no interest in taking on a label so other people can judge them prematurely.

Tress said:

Don't forget those of us who think they don't need to align themselves with any particular party, and have no interest in taking on a label so other people can judge them prematurely.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we call those "windsocks."

No, you call them that. Because with your limited understanding of the world, anyone who isn't a crackpot ranting like a hobo on a street corner isn't committed enough.

GasBandit said:

Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen.

Click to expand...

Your response makes no sense.

I think... GasBandit might be having a nervous breakdown.

Gas, are you okay?

Tress said:

No, you call them that. Because with your limited understanding of the world, anyone who isn't a crackpot ranting like a hobo on a street corner isn't committed enough.

Click to expand...

No. It's that some people are so desperate to avoid being "labeled" that they'll pretend they have complex combinations of views that aren't represented, when everything's pretty much already been diagrammed on spectra. To keep up the appearance, they'll vascillate between this and that, and the pragmatic upshot isn't that you have nuanced views, it's that you don't have enough conviction to fill a shot glass.

Krisken said:

Your response makes no sense.

Click to expand...

He said "tolerant republicans." You are not a republican. You're not part of the defined subset, so using your own views as a counterpoint isn't valid. Someone who supports the (purported) republican position of personal economic liberty and systemic economic responsibility, but isn't comfortable with christian theocracy, wants gay people to be able to marry same as anyone else, and maybe thinks the war on drugs is a waste of time and money... that person has libertarian views. Contrary to snide comments from the peanut gallery, libertarianism isn't all about making sure nobody helps anybody.

What YOU said made no sense. At the risk of he who is quiet flipping a table, it'd be as if he had said "if only more people who liked cake glazed with holes in the middle ate donuts" and you said "well maybe he hates donuts AND cake."

Gas, you said-
"Most americans are idiots who prefer the illusory simplicity of a false dichotomy to having to actually put effort into educating themselves about voting."

To which I replied
"Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen."

I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. I don't have to be a Republican to be included in subset to comment on your overgeneralized phrase which had nothing to do with just the subset. Unless you're saying all Americans are Republican, which of course is stupid.

As for the rest of the crap you wrote, I have no idea what drug you are taking to get to THAT conclusion from what I said.

Krisken said:

Gas, you said-
"Most americans are idiots who prefer the illusory simplicity of a false dichotomy to having to actually put effort into educating themselves about voting."

To which I replied
"Unlikely, if speaking of "tolerant republicans." Looney lefties with house avatars maybe.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin too, the guys who thinks Jesus says the government needs to pay their way through life, amen."

I wasn't responding to him, I was responding to you. I don't have to be a Republican to be included in subset to comment on your overgeneralized phrase which had nothing to do with just the subset. Unless you're saying all Americans are Republican, which of course is stupid.

As for the rest of the crap you wrote, I have no idea what drug you are taking to get to THAT conclusion from what I said.

Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you were responding to the one before it. In the "most americans" quote, I wasn't just referring to the Libertarian party as the only "third" option. There's the Green party, the Reform party, a wide selection of socialist parties... heck, there's even a Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

I was, however, including a great many republicans under the heading of most americans, being idiots.

GasBandit said:

Oh, I thought you were responding to the one before it. In the "most americans" quote, I wasn't just referring to the Libertarian party as the only "third" option. There's the Green party, the Reform party, a wide selection of socialist parties... heck, there's even a Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

Click to expand...

Believe me, if there was a strong progressive centrist party, that's where I would be sitting.

We need a Everybody Please STFU I'm Trying to Support My Family Party

And a Why Is the Jersey Shore Still On TV Party

And a Mass Effect 3 Endings Suck Party

We need a separate political party for every single divergent viewpoint.

Because then at least political power blocs will be so painful to assemble, most of the bullshit would hopefully not happen.

The only thing worse than a party system in politics is a system with NO parties. Your reps and senators are almost there already. Think of it this way: will anybody be confident enough to actually cut budgets? No, because on each and every bill, you have to practically BRIBE each member with pork for their district. It means that nobody votes for anything without "what's in it for me (or their district)?" This is already your problem, even with two parties, because they're relatively weak.

You guys need more than a 2-party system true, but don't let it dissolve into the writhing masses. That's even worse.

So, the only possible interpretation of a willingness to hear arguments objectively is that you're just trying to keep up appearances to some spectral viewership you apparently have? Huh. Well, damn me for not going out and finding the obscure party that exactly matches my points of view. Clearly, my unwillingness to align with such a party is a product of my vanity.

Krisken said:

Or they find the Libertarian party just as distasteful as the Republicans and Democrats.

Click to expand...

Or if they've gotten through their "high-school politics" phase and come to realize that the libertarian party is unpractical and founded entirely on ideology.

Hey, high school never ends. Didn't you listen to Bowling For Soup?

fade said:

So, the only possible interpretation of a willingness to hear arguments objectively is that you're just trying to keep up appearances to some spectral viewership you apparently have? Huh. Well, damn me for not going out and finding the obscure party that exactly matches my points of view. Clearly, my unwillingness to align with such a party is a product of my vanity.

Click to expand...

Well, you do hate everything.

Necronic said:

Or if they've gotten through their "high-school politics" phase and come to realize that the libertarian party is unpractical and founded entirely on ideology.

Click to expand...

A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.

Politics founded and based on idealogy?! I'm shocked.

GasBandit said:

A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Heh, true enough.

jwhouk said:

Hey, high school never ends. Didn't you listen to Bowling For Soup?

Click to expand...

And Incubus.

GasBandit said:

A funny thing happens if you hold the democrat and republican parties up to the same scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Yes, because holding the individuals responsible would just be silly, wouldn't it.

Wouldn't it?

Covar said:

Politics founded and based on idealogy?! I'm shocked.

Click to expand...

Missed this post. The thing is that for most organizations the so called "ideology" is mostly lip service. They will stand in outrage about a topic while subtly doing that exact thing when no one is looking. Ron Paul is a good example of that, complaining about wasteful government spending while appropriating more earmarks than almost any other republican. Or the whole "Subsidizing green energy is wrong as it props up an unprofitable business!" while also voting for subsidies for oil companies.

The ideological whitewash that so many politicians liberally paint on their platforms is just a way to bamboozle people too simple-minded to actually think about the complexities of political positions.

My problem with the libertarians is that I think they would actually vote ideologically instead of pragmatically, which is very dangerous.

You can throw the so called 'tea party' candidates in there too, Necronic.

It was funny listening to the last This American Life and hearing John McCain say to Russ Feingold how much he missed having him in congress.

Krisken said:

Yes, because holding the individuals responsible would just be silly, wouldn't it.

Wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

I think we're having two different conversations. What do you mean, here?

fade said:

So, the only possible interpretation of a willingness to hear arguments objectively is that you're just trying to keep up appearances to some spectral viewership you apparently have? Huh. Well, damn me for not going out and finding the obscure party that exactly matches my points of view. Clearly, my unwillingness to align with such a party is a product of my vanity.

Click to expand...

Scientists are so wishy-washy!

GasBandit said:

I think we're having two different conversations. What do you mean, here?

Click to expand...

That could be. I often find that while the parties are both responsible for the stupidity in politics we can't paint all of the Senators/Congressmen with the same brush. You and I both know having a (D), (R), or even an (I) in front of the name doesn't usually mean they are a carbon copy of each other. Well, usually anyways.

Krisken said:

That could be. I often find that while the parties are both responsible for the stupidity in politics we can't paint all of the Senators/Congressmen with the same brush. You and I both know having a (D), (R), or even an (I) in front of the name doesn't usually mean they are a carbon copy of each other. Well, usually anyways.

Click to expand...

Well, let's start over then. My original assertion was that
1) Americans are mostly idiots
2) There are a lot of people who identify as republicans when the libertarian party actually fits them better, but, see 1.
3) Necronic asserts that the underlying ideology of the libertarian party makes it impractical
4) I imply that the underlying ideology of both mainstream parties SHOULD make them just as untenable, but here we are.

I know I make a lot of Jack Johnson/John Jackson statements in general, but that wasn't where I was going with this particular discussion.

GasBandit said:

Well, let's start over then. My original assertion was that
1) Americans are mostly idiots
2) There are a lot of people who identify as republicans when the libertarian party actually fits them better, but, see 1.
3) Necronic asserts that the underlying ideology of the libertarian party makes it impractical
4) I imply that the underlying ideology of both mainstream parties SHOULD make them just as untenable, but here we are.

I know I make a lot of Jack Johnson/John Jackson statements in general, but that wasn't where I was going with this particular discussion.

Click to expand...

I see. You were going with the 'big tent' discussion.

Krisken said:

I see. You were going with the 'big tent' discussion.

Click to expand...

Don't even get me started on how toxic "big tents" are to government and liberty.

Well, when everyone inside is a clown...

Krisken said:

You can throw the so called 'tea party' candidates in there too, Necronic.

It was funny listening to the last This American Life and hearing John McCain say to Russ Feingold how much he missed having him in congress.

Click to expand...

That was pretty strange wasn't it. I mean, he said it with such longing. Like an old lover remembering past times.

Necronic said:

That was pretty strange wasn't it. I mean, he said it with such longing. Like an old lover remembering past times.

Click to expand...

Hah! That's the vibe I got too! I thought at any moment he was going to start saying "These fucking guys, I tells ya".